John Satcher, Complainant, Bruce Babbit, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 22, 2000
05a00195 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 22, 2000)

05a00195

08-22-2000

John Satcher, Complainant, Bruce Babbit, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.


John Satcher v. Department of the Interior

05A00195

August 22, 2000

John Satcher, )

Complainant, )

)

) Request No. 05A00195

) Appeal No. 01985230

Bruce Babbit, ) Agency No. FWS-97-031R1

Secretary, )

Department of the Interior, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in John

Satcher v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01985230 (October

14, 1999).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in

its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the

requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved

a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2)

the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405(b)).

After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the

previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the

request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it

is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The complainant

alleged that he was discriminated against in retaliation for his prior

EEO activity when he received two electronic mail messages (e-mails)

from co-workers. The first, from a co-worker who sometimes served as an

acting supervisor, contained a reference to complainant's having filed

a �workman's comp� claim. The second email, from a co-worker who had no

supervisory responsibilities over complainant, contained a reference to

complainant having filed an �EEO complaint.� The final agency decision

(FAD) found on the merits that complainant was neither �aggrieved� nor

�harassed� by having received these e-mails. The previous decision

summarily affirmed the FAD.

The Request to Reconsider (RTR) meets neither regulatory criterion for

granting reconsideration, i.e., that (1) the previous decision involved

a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the

decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,

or operation of the agency. Complainant attempts without success to

demonstrate that the previous decision contained an error of fact.

He argues that the supervisor's testimony was not worthy of belief but

he points to no competent record evidence that would call that testimony

into question.

Complainant also notes for the first time in his RTR that he was �removed

from a position that offered greater opportunities for advancement and

benefits to a position where chances for advancement are nil.� This

allegation does not provide any basis for the granting of the RTR since

it bears no relation to the complaint now before the Commission which

dealt only with e-mails received by complainant.

The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01985230 remains the Commission's

final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on

the decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right

of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the

right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District

Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this

decision. If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS THE DEFENDANT IN

THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD OR DEPARTMENT

HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS OR HER FULL NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE.

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.

"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the

local office, facility or department in which you work.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

August 22, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.